To:A. N. POTRESOV

Published:First published in 1925.

      Sent from Shushenskoye village to Orlov, Vyatka Gubernia.

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1974,

      Moscow,Volume 34,

      pages32-37.Translated:Clemens DuttTranscription\Markup:K. SmithPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

April 27, 1899

Iwas very glad, A. N., to receive your letter of March 27, which
at last broke your long and persistent silence. A heap of questions to be
discussed has indeed accumulated but there is no opportunity of having any
detailed conversation here on subjects that are mainly of a literary nature. And
now there is the
journal[11]: without talks with one’s colleagues one feels too cut off for
writing. There is only Julius, who takes all this quite closely andactivelyto heart, but the accursed “long distances” prevent
sufficiently detailed conversation with him.

Ishall begin with what interests and agitates me now most of all—Bulgakov’s
article in issues 1–2 and 3 ofNachalo. On reading your opinion of
him, I was exceedingly pleased to meet with sympathy on the most essential
point—the more so because, apparently, one cannot count very much on sympathy
from the editorial board./dots If Bulgakov’s article made a “repellent” and
“pitiful” impression on you, it absolutely infuriated me. Up till now, though
I have read and re-read Bulgakov, I simply cannot understand how he could write
an article so completely nonsensical and in such an extremely unbecoming tone,
and how the editors found it possible not to dissociate themselves by at least a
single comment from such a slashing attack on Kautsky, Like you, I am
“convinced that our people are utterly [just so!] confused and puzzled”. And
who wouldn’t be puzzled when told—in the name of “modern science” (No. 3,
p. 34)—that Kautsky is all wrong, arbitrary, socially incredible, “with
equally little of both real agronomics and real economics” (No. 1–2) and so
forth? Moreover, Kautskyis not expounded,but simply distorted, while Bulgakov’s own views as
part of any coherent system are entirely lacking. No man with any sense of party
spirit or sense of responsibility to all theGenossenand their whole
programme and practical activity would dare to take such “side kicks” (to use
your apt expression) at Kautsky, without giving anything himself, but merely
promising \dots a learned work on “Ost-Elbe”!  Apparently, he feels himself
free from all comradely obligations and responsibility, a “free” and
individual spokesman of professorial science, I do not forget, of course, that
under Russian conditions it is impossible to demand of a journal that it admit
someGenossenand exclude others—but a journal likeNachalois not an almanac, allowing Marxism just because it is the mode (à la
Mir Bozhy[12],Nauchnoye Obozreniye[13],
etc.), but an organ of a definite trend. It is incumbent on such a journal,
therefore, to put a certain restraint on learned “kickers” and on all
“outsiderg” in general. It is to the fact that its editors have run it as an
organ of a definite trend and not as an almanac thatNovoye Slovo[14]owes its great success.

Iread through Kautsky’s book before Bulgakov’s article appeared and I did not
find in the latter asingleat all intelligent arguement against
Kautsky. What I did find was a heap ofdistortionsof Kautsky’s ideas
and theses. What shear nonsense Bulgakov talks when he asserts, for example,
that Kautsky confuses technics and economics, that he tries to prove the “ruin
of agriculture” (No. 3, p. 31. Kautsky saysjustthe opposite: . 289),
that he denies agriculture any tendency to develop (No. 3, p. 34), and so on!

Ihave already written, and sent to the editorial board a fortnight ago, a first
article on “Capitalism in Agriculture (Kautsky’s Book and Mr. Bulgakov’s
Article)” and am now starting on a second dealing with the end of Bulgakov’s
article.[1]I greatly fear that P.B. will reject it, either on account of its considerable
length (it turns out to be larger than Bulgakov’s article, firstly, because I
have to give reasons for refuting such unsupported and carelessly pronounced
verdicts as, for example, that Marx was wrong in teaching that the ratio
\fracv/c decreases in agriculture; secondly, becauseit is essential to expoundKautsky), or because a polemic is considered
undesirable (of course, I have not used in the article a single abusive
expression, like those above, and in general I have tried to avoid anything
personal against Bulgakov. The tone in general is in no way sharper than in my
article against
Tugan-Baranovsky[15]on the theory of the market

). I
should be very glad to hear your opinion, when you have read Kautsky’s
book and finished reading Bulgakov: what exactly do you find “true”
in Bulgakov? And do you think it possible to let Bulgakov’s article in the
journal go unanswered?

Ingeneral, all this “new critical trend” in Marxism, espoused by
Struve and Bulgakov (P. B. is apparentlyin favour ofBulgakov), looks
highly suspicious to me: resounding phrases about “criticism”
against “dogma” and so forth—and absolutely no positive
results of the criticism. Moreover, compiling an articleà laBulgakov required, besides “criticism” and
sympathy for professorial “modern science
tactlessnessnec plus ultra.

Isent Struve a reply to his article on the
market.[2]My
sister[16]writes to me that this reply will be published inNauchnoye
Obozreniyeand that P. B. intends to answer it in the same journal. I
cannot agree with you that “the crux of the question lies in the concrete
impossibility of an abstractly conceivable proposition” and my main
argument against P. B. is precisely that he mixes up abstract-theoretical and
concrete-historical questions. “Concretely impossible” is not only
realisation as put forward by Marx, but also land rent as put forward by him,
and average profit, and the equality between wages and the value of labour-
power, and much more besides. But the impossibility of something being realised
in apureform is not a refutation. I am quite unable to see any
contradiction between my assertions in theStudies[17]and inNauchnoye Obozreniye, nor do I see the “bourgeois
apologetics” with which Struve has been trying to frighten readers. What I
find most objec-tionable in his article is the fact that he drags in critical philosophy and
that he makes remarks such as that Marx’s theory of value and profit
“indisputablysuffers from a contradiction”. P. B. is
perfectly well aware that this isdisputable—why then sow
confusion in the minds of our people, who so farhave received nosystematic proof of this contradiction and its correction from any single
spokesman of the “new critical trend”?

AndBulgakov’s sally (No. 3, p. 34, note) against the theory ofZusammenbruch[3]!—without any mention of Bernstein and with the
irrevocable authority of a “learned” decree! I know about the
publication of Bernstein’s new book and I have ordered it but it is hardly
likely to be sent. The article about it in theFrankfurter
Zeitung[18]and inZhizn[19](not a bad journal!
Its literary section is really good, even better than any others!) has quite
convinced me that I did not rightly understand Bernstein’s disjointed
articles and that he has got himself so tangled up in lies that he really
deserves to bebegraben,[4]as the author ofBeiträge zur Geschichte des
Materialismus[5]expressed it in an open letter to
Kautsky. Bernstein’s arguments, which are new to me, against the
materialist conception of
history,[6]etc., are (according toZhizn)
astonishingly feeble. If P. B. is such an ardent defender of Bernstein that he
is all but prepared to “quarrel” over him, it is very, very sad,
because his “theory” againstZusammenbruch—excessively narrow for Western Europe—is
altogether unsuitable anddangerousfor Russia. Do you know that it is
already being made use of by our “young” people (ultra-Economists),
who in one publication gave an account of the Stuttgart debatesin such a
waythat for them Bernstein, Peus, and others were defenders of
“economics, not politics”? What does P. B.think of such “allies”? If by the successes of the ultra-Economists you
mean the resignation of Volgin and his closest comrades, I know about
it[20];
it was a great shock to me and I am now puzzled as to how matters stand
and what the future has in store. I think it terribly harmful that this dispute
with the ultra-Economists was notfully and completelyventilated in
the press: it would have been the only serious way of clearing things up and
establishing certain precise theoretical propositions. Instead, there is now complete chaos!

Mybook has come
out[7]and I have asked that it should be sent to you (I have not
yet received it myself). I have heard that the P.S. to the preface was late,
came under the preliminary censorship and, it seems, “got into
trouble”. I shall await your comments with interest.

Iordered Karelin’s book and read it before I received it from you. I
liked it very much; it is devilishly annoying that it was pared down!
Aren’t you going to write a review of it?

Anacquaintance of mine has sent meA. P.’s “Magazine
Notes” (on the “heritage” and the “inheritors”). I
wonder whether the continuation intended to carry on a further polemic with me
or not? I liked A. P.’s article very much; the issue was much the
worse for the cuts in the article. Truth to tell, I see no differences of
opinion between us: you deal with adifferentquestion—not what the attitude of the
disciples is to Russian democracy in general and whether they reject it (I
wroteexclusivelyabout
this),[8]but what the relations were between
democrats of various types in the good old days. I was concerned only with
Mikhailovsky’s[21]mistake in supposing that we reject democracy
altogether—whereas you fasten onhis other mistake, the
“slurring over” of substantially important distinctions in the
“heritage”. I saw Maslov’s note in No. 3 ofNauchnoye
Obozreniyedirected against me, but to tell you the truth I was not
interested in it. By the way, the cuts in A. P.’s article confirmed my opinion
that it is “inconvenient” totake a more striking testator than Skaldin (a sad confirmation!). In general, I
find the tone of the journal that of a dying body. If that is so, the end and
death is only a question of time. It is simply speculation onRatlosigkeit[9]and bureaucracy in the department which, etc. One could
hold one’s tongue without any harm and not without advantage to the
cause. As a matter of fact, compared with the modern tone, ourMaterialscould be a model of “moderation” and
“solidity”[22]

Allthe best.V. U.

Writemore often, if it’s not too much bother, otherwise I am quite unable
to get press news from anyone.

Iam sending theHistorische
Berechtigung[10]by registered
post. Please don’t think me careless about returning books:
you did not mention any time limit and so I did not refuse comrades who
 asked to he allowed to read it. I shall be very grateful for the end of
 Karelin.

Doyou have any German reviews of Kautsky? I have read only that in theFrankfurter Zeitung—irate and emptyà laBulgakov.

Iam very pleased on the whole with the issues of the
journal.[23]It is splendidly, edited. Have you read Gvozdyov’s
book[24]and what do you think of it?

[1]Seepresent edition, Vol. 4, pp. 105–59.—Ed.

“ANote on the Question of the Market Theory (Apropos of the Polemic of
Messrs. Tugan-Baranovsky and Bulgakov)” (see present edition,
  Vol. 4).—Ed.

[2]“OnceMore on the Theory of Realisation” (see present edition
   Vol. 4).—Ed.

[3]Collapse(of capitalism).—Ed.

[4]Buried.—Ed.

[5]Contributionsto the History of Materialism.—Ed.

[6]Incidentally,do you remember how one of our common
friends[25]in the “beautiful faraway” maliciously ridiculed and
soundly scold ed me for having called the materialist conception of
history a “method”? And behold, it turns out that Kautsky, too, in
using the same word: “method”, is guilty of the same
grievous sin. (Zhiza,January, Book II,
p. 53.) Have you any news of this friend? Is his health better? Is there
any hope that he will write?
—Lenin

[7]TheDevelopment of Capitalism in Russia(see present edition,
Vol. 3).—Ed.

[8]“TheHeritage We Renounce” (see present edition,
   Vol. 2).—Ed.

[9]Perplexity—Ed.

[10]HistoricalJustification.—Ed.

[11]Meaningthe journalNachalo(see Note 25). p. 32

[12]MirBozhy(God’s World)—a monthly literary and
popular-science journal of a liberal trend, published in
St. Petersburg from 1892 to 1906. From 1906 to 1918 it was issued
under the name ofSovremenny Mir(The Contemporary World).
p. 33

[13]NauchnoyeObozreniye(Scientific Review)—a journal,
published in St. Petersburg from 1894 to 1903; accepted contributions
from publicists and scientists of all schools and trends; widely used
by liberals and “legal Marxists”. The journal published
occasional articles by Marxists. p. 33

[14]SeeNote 11. p. 33

[15]Tugan-Baranovsky,Mikhail Ivanovich(1865-1919)—Russian
bourgeois economist, in the nineties a prominent spokesman of
“legal Marxism”, contributed to the journalsNovoye
Slovo,Nachalo, and others. p. 34

[16]Thisrefers to Anna Ilyinichna Ulyanova-Yelizarova. p. 34

[17]Thisrefers to a miscellany of Lenin’s,Economic Studies and
Essays, published in October 1898 (the cover and title-page bore
the date 1899). p. 34

[18]FrankfurterZeitung—a daily newspaper, mouthpiece of
the German merchants of Change, published in Frankfurt am Main from
1856 to 1943. p. 35

[19]Zhizn(Life)—a literary, scientific and political
journal published in St. Petersburg from 1897 to 1901.

Publicationwas resumed abroad in April 1902 by theZhiznSocial-Democratic group (V. D. Bonch-Bruyevich, V. A. Posse,
V. M. Velichkina and others); six issues of the journal, twelve ofListok Zhizniand several volumes of theZhizn
Libraryseries were published.

Thegroup ceased to exist in December 1902 and the publishing-house
was liquidated. p. 35

[25]Apparentlythis refers to Plekhanov, with whom Lenin had talks in 1895
during his visit to Switzerland. p. 35

[20]Thisrefers to the split that took place at the First Conference of
the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad held in Zurich
(Switzerland) in November 1898.

TheUnion of Russian Social-Democrats Abroadwas founded in
Geneva in 1894 on the initiative of the Emancipation of Labour group
(see Note 58). It had its own press where it printed revolutionary
literature and published the non-periodic miscellanyRabotnik. At first the Emancipation of Labour group
controlled the Union and edited its publications. Eventually control
passed to the opportunist elements—the Economists or the
so-called “young” group. At the First Conference of the
Union held in November 1898 the Emancipation of Labour group announced
their refusal to edit the Union publications. The Group finally broke
with the Union and left its ranks in April 1900 at the Second
Conference of the Union, when the Emancipation of Labour group and its
supporters walked out and established their ownSotsial-Demokratorganisation.

Atthe Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. held in 1903 the
Union’s representatives took an extremely opportunist stand and
walked out after the Congress declared the League of Russian
Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad to be the only organisation of
the Party abroad. The Second Congress declared the Union
dissolved. p. 36

[21]Mikhailovsky,Nikolai Konstantinovich(1842-1904)—a
prominent theoretician of liberal Narodism, publicist and literary
critic; a representative of the subjective school in sociology; editor
of the journalsOtechestvenniye ZapiskiandRusskoyeBogatstvo. Lenin criticised Mikhailovsky’s views in his
bookWhat the “Friends of the People” Are and How They
Fight the Social-Democrats(see Vol. 1 of this edition) and other
writings. p. 36

[22]Leninrefers to the miscellanyMaterial for a Characterisation of
Our Economic Developmentcontaining his article (over the
pen-name K. Tulin) “The Economic Content of Narodism and the
Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book. (The Reflection of Marxism
in Bourgeois Literature)” directed against legal Marxism (see
Vol. 1 of this edition). p. 37

[23]Thisrefers toDie Neue Zeit(see Note 19). p. 37

[24]Gvozdyov(Zimmerman,Roman Emilievich)
(1866-1900)—author, whose short stories and economic articles
were published inRusskoye Bogatstvo,ZhiznandNauchnoye Obozreniye. p. 37